You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Demian Rose
Hey Jim,
Sorry abut the confusion, we mislabeled the templates on page 245. There is no need for a 1" template in the current rules that I know of, so count it as a bonus. :-)
i used to just alternate rounds in the same magazine
APDS, EX, APDS, EX, etc.
Then you would have been paying extra points for parallel capability.
has any one looked into correcting the pdf for the four free sample armies ?
you know, changing 4" AoE's to 3".......stuff like that
I'm not sure I'm understanding the need for this change. 4" AOE is allowed, though we were unable to fit 4" templates into the layout.
Have you found any other errata in the sample lists?
and just so i'm clear: if you have a weapon with a one-shot frame that's a tandem combo with another frame and you fire the one-shot it will still take a fire action to switch to the other frame ???
You are correct. It takes a turn to shift to a new frame.
In "real life", this represents using the same barrell for different rounds, i.e. the need to physically shift between feeds.
A modern over/under GL design would be parallel, not tandem.
As written, the rame rules do not allow for the use of identical frames with different weapon choices. I do not, however, think that this would at all break the system or go against the spirit of the frame restriction rules, assuming only a few frames are affected. I think maybe a quick addendum stating that "plaers may always duplicate a frame for purposes of increasing weapon choices, but each frame so duplicated counts towards the total number of frames of the army in question."
With regards to the combo weapons, I think that, as long as you move from highest priced frame to lowest price frame, you can do any mix of parallel and tandem sub-frames that you would want. Keep in mind, however, that the pricing assumes tandem frames will take a fire action to go to *and* to move away from, i.e. you couldn't start the game wth your (cheaper) tandem round just to move to a parallel round without wasting a turn...make sense?
I'll plan that both of the above will be made clarifications in the new supplement.
As part of a general update of the rules that will occur with the supplement I'm working on, I am taking another look at some of Defiance's more unique mechanics. In this case, suppression fire.
Do players have any opinions about the usefullness of suppression fire in a standard game? Or even in the scenarios, if you've tried them. Specifically, how do you think it compares to just using covering fire instead?
-Demian
could be that effector costs for cone weapons in general might deserve a second look
The new errata corrects the cone weapon effector costs. Basically, I had never proportionately increased the effector costs after I increased the basic cone weapon costs to account for their power in playtesting...doh!
has this updated PDF been sent out yet, or is it still being worked on ??
Hi Jim,
I just finished one further comb-through of the rules, scouring the army construction tables and army lists for math errors. There were a few (minor) typos and miscalculations, so I am sending Josh (the layout guy) a final errata document. Hopefully, we'll have this same doc posted to the Defiance website soon.
Dan is the man when it comes to the details about dowloading a new pdf, etc.
-Demian
Looks great! It sounds like the setting has a lot of effective ranged fire weapons, making me confident that it will point balance just fine.
-Demian
1-3 -- +1 to AR or -1 to hit
4-7 -- no effect
8-10 -- -1 to AR or +1 to hit
Points cost should be 0 pts, or at least nominal. Maybe some limitations as to the frames (say, infantry/vehicle +4 > AR > -2, weapon effector limitations...) might apply.
The old Boer army list in Starslayer: Ascendance had an option like this for one of the troop types. One way to make it cost points would be to make the odds slightly in your favor as to a better AR, but still risking that you would pay for a worse AR.
-Demian
Now that I've started to work on the Defiance supplement, a little playtesting I did last weekend made me question the cost of cone weapons - costs I have struglled with before, since they aren't easy to statistically define.
Do folks have any thoughts about the current point costs for cone weapons. Do they seem too high or too low for a 5' by 4' table?
-Demian
It sounds like Defiance can work for a company game.
How long wound a regular platoon game, with about 30 figures per side, take to play?
I'm going to slightly amend what I quoted to take into account Rich and Sam's input.
100 figures is feasible within 4 hours if you play with fewer elite troops and also indirect fire. If you want all the bells and whistles, especially if you prefer to play with very few vehicles, I'd say the range of feasible (again, in my opin ion, this is about 4 hours of actual game time) is about 70-80 figures per side.
I would echo that an "average" game, i.e. a platoon per side, typically takes just under two hours.
-Demian
I was able to play a 1000 point game in about 50 minutes and I was teaching someone the game.
One side had Space Marines with about 10 figures (the weapons were expensive) and another had Genestealers with about 30 figures.
I'd love to hear any thoughts about how this battle went, as it's probably on the small side of a typical game of Defiance.
you're looking at a minimum of about 90 figures per side, depending on what support elements are available, and assuming each squad is up to full strength
If you have a big enough table (6' by 5' or bigger), then Defiance can handle games of about 100 figures per side in about 4 hours.
An alternative would be to use the rules for 15mm scale, and play the same sized battle on a smaller table.
-Demian
The working draft of back cover wording is now on the product description page:
http://mj12games.com/defiance/0410.html
Any comments appreciated.
Welcome, Wombat - I love your sig, by the way.
Feel free to post any army list you create here for comments.
Cheers,
Demian
But I did notice that on the grenade design section of the customizer, that smoke grenades don't seem to buyable by theselves. Is this an error or a standard thing in the rules.?
Per the rules, smoke grenades should be purchasable by themselves, as well as add-on effects for other grenades.
-Demian
a 4 inch radius AoE ????
For grenades?
My newest idea is this: update the Customizer to include PV's for game play on small and/or very heavily terrained surfaces, add some new augmentations and grenade/CDW options and a bunch of army lists, hopefully some of them player-submitted.
So, anyone have ideas about new augmentations, grenades or army list templates?
-Demian
When I say "open-source" I am referring to the fact that the point system itself will become transparent. I waffle back and forth between this being cool and it seeming too complicated for the average player, who really just wants a fast way to convert armies and cares little for the design decisions and mathematics that underly the system.
I do think a book of many different armies, like the old ARES supplement, would be useful and fairly easy to produce in a short period of time. I could even incorporate the Starslayer army list into this, with maybe a few new concept pieces.
A computerized version of the Customizer is certainly still a priority, but we are limited by the fact that we can't pay much for it, so depend on the free time of fine folks such as javelin98.
Cheers,
Demian
It would be cool if folks asked for Defiance to be reviewed at scifi.com. All you have to do is type in a few lines of text:
http://scifi.com/sfw/standing/request.html
Thanks,
Demian
@FM: Can you tell me more what you mean by more accessible?
Thanks!
Also, I should note that creating the Customizer open source will require either a) a computer program, or b) lots more math to be done with a pencil and a calculator.
-Demian
Hey Folks,
Next month, I will finally be in a position to have enough free time to actually think a bit about writing new Defiance stuff. Combined with the fact that VG continues to sell well and get positive press, I have been throwing around some ideas of products that would be small enough in scope to be completed in a reasonable time frame:
1. A Starslayer army list with some new fluff and a few new rules, especially new options for the Customizer.
2. An opensource, stand alone Customizer with many more options.
3. A close quarters battle modification of the rules and Customizer for tunnel and city fighting.
Thoughts?
-Demian
looks like I will be playin with my Grymn against some IG on Monday
Hey cool, let us know how it goes. Battle reports (even brief ones) are always a plus...
Hey BD: as others have said, terrain mastery and powerful weapons (plus weapon training for specific squads) seem the best way to represent how you envision the Grymn.
I think that their "average" quality should probably be Veteran, with elites and heroes filling in the gap. With a leader, a Veteran unit can be as small as 3 figures without needing to take morale tests, though you might want to hedge your bets by starting with 4-5.
I look forward to seeing what you create. I've been a big fan of the Grymn line since its inception.
-Demian
mj12games.com/forum → Posts by Demian Rose
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.